W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:38:16 -0400
Message-ID: <54356878.9010201@arcanedomain.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
FWIW, as someone who has not been directly involved in the recent debates 
on this I read the sentence:

"Most of the URL-related terms used in the HTML specification (URL, 
absolute URL, relative URL, relatives schemes, scheme component, scheme 
data, username, password, host, port, path, query, fragment, percent 
encode, get the base, and UTF-8 percent encode) can be mapped directly to 
the terminology of [RFC3986] and [RFC3987]."

...and my reaction was "what is that trying to say?". If the proposed text 
had gone on to highlight one or two specific such mappings and indicated 
the source of normative definitions for all the others, that would have 
been helpful. Conversely, if what was meant was "[these terms] can in 
principle be mapped to the terminology of  [RFC3986] and [RFC3987] but in 
fact nobody has yet agreed on those mappings", then it should say that.

So, I found the quoted text to be ambiguous and for that reason unhelpful 
and confusing. Thank you.


On 10/8/2014 11:47 AM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> My understanding of the TAG's position based on our discussion at the last meeting is we would prefer to just reference https://url.spec.whatwg.org/.
> The proposed text seems problematic in three ways:
> 1. Most importantly, it contains "URL (URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/url/), E. Arvidsson, M.[tm] Smith. W3C." which is explicitly what the TAG was recommending against.
> 2. Less importantly, it seems like it's trying to quash some sort of blog post into a reference. Maybe this is necessary for political reasons, but from a technical perspective, all that HTML needs with regard to referencing URL is "URL (URL: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/), A. van Kesteren. WHATWG." HTML's coupling to URL does not necessitate adding a blog post to the spec explaining how everyone could possibly want to use URLs, and in fact the blog-post-within-a-reference creates confusion by talking about "mapping directly to the terminology of [RFC3986] and [RFC3987]", which are actively incorrect documents for implementers or developers to read with regard to how to URLs are handled in HTML.
> 3. Least importantly, it uses the incorrect http:// URL instead of the correct https:// one.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Lafon [mailto:ylafon@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 03:04
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: FYI: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text
> About the URL reference discussion we had during the last f2f, See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Oct/0002.html
> If you have technical feedback...
> Thanks,
> --
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>           ~~Yves
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 16:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:06 UTC